Space Weaponization – 4 Week
US Space Weaponization Good – Space Pearl Harbor
Download 0.53 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- US Space Weaponization Good – Hegemony
US Space Weaponization Good – Space Pearl HarborChina will attack US space systems now – only deploying weapons solves for a space war TELLIS Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 07, Ashley: Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Senior Adviser to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, former Senior Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation [“China's Military Space Strategy,” Survival 49:3 p41-72, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/tellis_china_space1.pdf] Finally, the growing Chinese capability for space warfare implies that a future conflict in the Taiwan Strait would entail serious deterrence and crisis instabilities. If such a clash were to compel Beijing to attack US space systems at the beginning of a war, the very prospect of such a 'space Pearl Harbor'94 could, in turn, provoke the United States to contemplate pre-emptive attacks or horizontal escalation on the Chinese mainland. Such outcomes would be particularly likely in a conflict in the next decade, before Washington has the opportunity to invest fully in redundant space capabilities. Already, US Strategic Command officials have publicly signaled that conventionally armed Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles would be appropriate weapons for executing the prompt strikes that might become necessary in such a contingency.95 Such attacks, even if employing only conventional warheads, on space launch sites, sensor nodes and command and control installations on the Chinese mainland could well be perceived as a precursor to an all-out war. It would be difficult for all sides to limit the intensification of such a conflict, even without the added complications of accidents and further misperception.96 *** The emergence of potent Chinese counter-space capabilities makes US military operations in Asia more risky than ever. The threat has not arisen due to a lack of a space arms-control regime, or because of the Bush administration's disinclination to negotiate an accord that bans the weaponization of space. Rather, it is rooted entirely in China's requirement that it be able to defeat the United States in a regional conflict despite its conventional inferiority. This strategic challenge has compelled Beijing to exploit every anti-access and battle-space-denial technology potentially available. The threat posed by this Chinese effort cannot be neutralized by arms-control agreements, even though all countries stand to profit from the absence of threats to their assets in space. There is a temptation, especially in the United States, to view China's counter-space programs in moralistic terms. This approach is undesirable and best avoided: Beijing's desire to defeat the stronger by asymmetric means is not a reflection of its deviousness, nor provoked by mendacity on the part of the United States or the Bush administration. It is grounded in the objective conditions that define the relationship between the two countries: competing political goals, likely to persist whether or not the Taiwan conflict is resolved. In such circumstances, the United States should seek, as the Bush administration's own National Space Policy declares, to protect the 'use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all humanity'. But if this fundamental goal is threatened by Chinese counter-space activities aimed at American space assets, the United States has no choice but to run an offence-defense arms race, and win. US Space Weaponization Good – HegemonySpace Militarization key to hegemomy – provides needed information and access Dolman 06 Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) (Everett C., “ A Debate About Weapons in Space: For U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html) The tremendous growth in space reliance from Desert Storm to Iraqi Freedom is evident in the raw numbers. The use of operational satellite communications increased four-fold, despite being used to support a much smaller force (fewer than 200,000 personnel compared with more than 500,000). New operational concepts such as reach back (intelligence analysts in the United States sending information directly to frontline units) and reach forward (rear-deployed commanders able to direct battlefield operations in real time) reconfigured the tactical concept of war. The value of Predator and Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), completely reliant on satellite communications and navigation for their operation, was confirmed. Satellite support also allowed Special Forces units to range across Iraq in extremely disruptive independent operations, practically unfettered in their silent movements. But the paramount effect of space-enabled warfare was in the area of combat efficiency. Space assets allowed all-weather, day-night precision munitions to provide the bulk of America's striking power. Attacks from standoff platforms, including Vietnam-era B-52s, allowed maximum target devastation with extraordinarily low casualty rates and collateral damage. In Desert Storm, only 8 percent of munitions used were precision-guided, none of which were GPS-capable. By Iraqi Freedom, nearly 70 percent were precision-guided, more than half from GPS satellites.3 In Desert Storm, fewer than 5 percent of aircraft were GPS-equipped. By Iraqi Freedom, all were. During Desert Storm, GPS proved so valuable to the army that it procured and rushed into theater more than 4,500 commercial receivers to augment the meager 800 military-band ones it could deploy from stockpiles, an average of one per company (about 200 personnel). By Iraqi Freedom, each army squad (6–10 soldiers) had at least one military GPS receiver. Given the demonstrated utility of and reliance upon military assets in space, there is no question the United States must guarantee space access if it is to be successful in future conflicts. Its military has stepped well over the threshold of a new way of war. It is simply not possible to go back to the violently spasmodic mode of combat typical of pre-space interventions. The United States is now highly discriminating in the projection of violence, and parsimonious in the intended breadth of its destruction. For the positive process of transformation to continue, however, space weapons must enter the combat inventory of the United States.[End Page 165] Space Militarization is k/t Heg Smith 01’ – researcher at the School of Advanced Air Power Studies M.V. SMITH, TEN PROPOSITIONS REGARDING SPACEPOWER, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/smith.pdf On one side are those who argue that the United States needs to develop a military capability to protect its satellites from attack and to deny adversaries access to the benefits of satellite products and services. On the other side are those who contend that weapons should never be employed in space. They urge instead that arms control and other cooperative measures are the best means to protect American equities in space, as well as to prevent space from becoming an arena for armed conflict.201 Both sides of the debate have valid concerns. Proponents of weaponization claim the US will enhance its national power by weaponizing space. They are quick to point out that .there is no blanket prohibition in international law on placing or using weapons in space, applying force from space to Earth or conducting military operations in and through space. Hays and Mueller describe this side of the debate like this: If the United States moves expeditiously to take advantage of its existing leadership in space technology and establish an unassailable dominance of orbital space, its position as the preeminent world power will be enhanced and perpetuated; if, on the other hand, it fails to seize the opportunity to establish unassailable superiority in space, its world leadership will be threatened by more visionary rivals.[H]e who controls space will control the world, or at least he who doesn’t, won’t, and, thus the more the United States invests in developing its spacepower, the more powerful and secure it will be. A New American Way of War Dolman 05 [Everett, A New American Way of War, For e-parliament conference on Space Security, http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.pdf ] The United States has embarked on a revolutionary military transformation designed to extend its dominance in military engagements. Space capabilities are the lynchpin of this transformation, enabling a level of precision, stealth, command and control, intelligence gathering, speed, maneuverability, flexibility, and lethality heretofore unknown. This twenty-first century way of war promises to give the United States a capacity to use force to influence events around the world in a timely, effective, and sustainable manner. And this is a good thing, a true transformation from conflicts past. That the process of transformation was well underway became evident in 1991, when the world’s fourth largest military was defeated in just ten days of ground combat. Unfathomably complicated battle equipment, sleek new aircraft, and promising new missile interceptors publicly debuted. Arthur C. Clarke went so far as to dub Operation DESERT STORM (ODS) the world’s first space war, as none of the accomplishments of America’s new look military would have been possible without support from space. Twelve years later, in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF), assertions as to the central role of space power could no longer be denied. America’s military had transitioned from space supported to a fully space enabled force, with astonishingly positive results. Indeed, most of the nation’s current space power functions were successfully exercised in OIF, including space lift, command and control, intelligence including rapid battle damage assessment, timing and navigation, and meteorological support. US Space Mil is key to maintain heg, another country militarizing would kill it Dolman 06 Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) (Everett C., “ A Debate About Weapons in Space: For U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space”, SAIS Review, Winter-Spring, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v026/26.1dolman.html) This reasoning does not dispute the fact that U.S. deployment of weapons in outer space would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity, one that would assist in extending the current period of American hegemony well into the future. Clearly this would be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is less threatening than any other state doing so. Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although [End Page 169] there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the majority of states seem to regard it as at least tolerable. A continuation of the status quo is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working toward its demise. As long as the United States does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. On the other hand, an attempt by any other state to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order, with the weaponizing state at the top. Such an action would challenge the status quo, rather than seek to perpetuate it. This would be disconcerting to nations that accept the current international order—including the venerable institutions of trade, finance and law that operate within it—and intolerable to the United States. As leader of the current system, the United States could do no less than engage in a perhaps ruinous space arms race, save graciously decide to step aside. Space is Key to Hegemony Lele 2010 a Research fellow at IDSA. Ajey Lele, Indian Defense Review, Trends in Space Weaponization, http://www.indiandefencereview.com/defence-industry/Trends-in-Space-Weaponisation.html All the three incidents narrated above indicate the importance of space dominance for major powers. For last couple of decades space is being viewed as an area of great strategic advantage. The 1991 Gulf War demonstrated, among other things, what can happen when a nation that does not enjoy the benefits of space exploitation wages war against one that does. In that conflict, the US enjoyed a virtual monopoly on access to space-based surveillance, communications, and navigation support. The same satellites could offer information on military targets too. Second, for many years various manual, mechanical and electronic methods are being used for the purposes of military surveillance, communications, and navigation and satellites is just one of the new methods. Also, usage of satellite technology for these purposes does not violate any international legal regime. In short usage of satellite technology for military purposes per say has no restrictions. Such usage of satellite technology is known as ‘militarization of space’.Since 1980s a concept is being floated called the “rods from god.” ... then they could make militaries capable enough to destroy underground, hardened nuclear facilities. This experimental launch carried out by the US is not the attempt to weaponise the space by any state. In fact it was China which is now criticizing the US was instrumental in raising the ante in regards to security of space assets/satellites in the recent past. On January 11, 2007 China shocked the entire world by destroying its own aging weather satellite. They had launched a missile to destroy this satellite by using a kinetic kill vehicle (KKV) warhead. This destruction of satellite had lead to the creation of huge debris in the space with a potential to harm other satellites orbiting in the space. This test by China was a clear depiction of its intent to prove to the world about its ASAT (anti-satellite) capacity. In the past during mid-eighties both US and Russia (erstwhile USSR) had demonstrated this capacity however, they had stopped testing because of the debris issue. At the backdrop of above it could be argued that space warfare is likely to become a reality for the future. It would present both the military and the diplomacy with a new tool to play power politics. It is expected that the first country to put weapons in space may have an advantage in this field. States are likely to draw lessons from the nuclear arms race philosophy in yesteryears which started with a view to maintain a monopoly of this type of weapon. Space weapons may even emerge as an alternative to existing nuclear deterrence mechanism within few years. At the beginning of this 21st century the world is witnessing the existence of unified battlefield constituting of the five theaters of combat, namely, land, sea, air, cyber and space. It is expected that major portion of the latter half of the 21st century security makeup would be dominated by space. Space Militarization Crucial CALLAHA 2000 [William, SPACE WEAPONIZATION, Report, 2000, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA433750&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf] The United States currently enjoys an overwhelming advantage in space-based surveillance, communications and navigation aids. Protecting these assets and maintaining U.S. dominance in space is potentially critical to the defense of U.S. national interests. As U.S. national space policy indicates, leaders at the highest levels of government recognize this potential vulnerability. The policy explicitly states that national security space activities must deter, warn, and if necessary, defend against enemy attack. It also states “DOD shall maintain the capability to execute the mission areas of … space control, and force application.” Finally, current policy stipulates that “the United States will develop, operate and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries” 1 Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.53 Mb. Share with your friends:
|